Economist Debates adapt the Oxford style of debating to an online forum. The format was made famous by the 186-year-old Oxford Union and has been practised by heads of state, prominent intellectuals and galvanising figures from across the cultural spectrum. It revolves around an assertion that is defended on one side (the "proposer") and assailed on another (the "opposition") in a contest hosted and overseen by a moderator. Each side has three chances to persuade readers: opening, rebuttal and closing.

In Economist Debates, proposer and opposition each consist of a single speaker, experts in the issue at hand. We also invite featured guests to comment on the debate, not to take sides, but to provide context and informed perspective on the subject.

Those attending an Oxford-style debate participate in two ways: by voting to determine the debate's winner and by addressing comments to the moderator. The same holds here. As a reader, you are encouraged to vote. As long as the debate is open, you may change your vote as many times as you change your mind. And you are encouraged to air your own views by sending comments to the moderator. These should be relevant to the motion, the speakers' statements or the observations of featured guests. And they must be addressed directly to the moderator, who will single out the most compelling for discussion by the speakers.

Winner announcement

December 21, 2012

Jon Fasman

JON FASMAN Atlanta correspondent, The Economist

Jon Fasman covers politics, business and culture in the American South. He joined The Economist as a cities guide editor in 2003. He is the author of two novels, both published by Penguin Press: "The Geographer's Library", which was a New York Times bestseller in 2005 and has been translated into more than a dozen languages; and "The Unpossessed City", which was published in autumn 2008 and was a finalist for the New York Public Library's Young Lions Fiction Award.

This was a well-fought but civil debate, and we would like to thank Ron Haskins and Stephanie Coontz for taking part. Given the libertarian bent of The Economist and our readers, it is no surprise that Ms Coontz's position—that government should not encourage its citizens to marry—carried the day. Marriage is a uniquely complex institution: private yet public, for some religious and for others secular, for some fundamental and for others outmoded. Yet what struck me most over the course of this debate was not the point on which Mr Haskins and Ms Coontz disagreed most strongly—whether falling marriage rates principally contribute to or result from poverty—but the broad area on which they agreed: that on balance, stable and happy marriages are good for both the couple and the children they raise.